Hypocrisy strikes again.

The threat of climate change poses no danger to the current generation or even the following. Those who advocate for combating climate change do so for the benefit of those who do not currently exist and will not exist for a good amount of time. So we are essentially placing the welfare of those who have not yet been born on a higher plane than the welfare of those who are currently in existence. A noble practice, to be sure.

It is morally hypocritical for those same people to turn around and devalue the lives of our unborn future in the interest of satisfying the wants and needs of the here and now. Does someone who strongly advocates for climate change reform AND pro-choice really have a moral ground to stand on?

What OpParisAnon said.

Also, saying that it's hypocritical to support both combat of climate change and abortion is very ignorant. Combating climate chance is for the people who are definitely going to exist in the future. Abortion is not going to stop all of those people from existing, because most people will not have abortions.

The premise of this question is wrong to begun with.

The problem with this question is that it equates the both natural borne descendants to aborted clumps of cells. Because that's all they are. Clumps of cells. People are concerned about their future living, breathing descendants. Not a clump of cells. Not to mention that we don't own this planet. There are 10^22 nematodes alone! That isn't counting the up to 50 million species that we share this planet for. If a woman wants to make a concious, well thought out decision, Let her. This is a free country.

This question makes no sense

There are many issues with this train of though, but I'll just start with the fact that climate change is already harming us. Already society is seeing its 6th mass extinction. Already coastal towns are seeing increased flooding. Already we are seeing increased drought and harm due to climate change. Not to mention the fact that a week old infant ALREADY BORN will be seeing the damaging impact of climate change for the next 70 years (on average).

Secondly, caring about the future of humanity and deciding that it is perfectly acceptable for an human to decide not to allow someone else to live in their body are two completely different things! I admit that I agree wholeheartedly that no one, anyone, should ever be forced to sustain another with their body. EVER. This to me is an amazing evil and sin. If I would die because no one wanted to sustain me with their body, I would support that 100%. I would feel very evil deciding that my life was so important that I could insist that another used their body to keep me alive. To me, caring about humanity is supporting abortion, and it is supporting measures to combat climate change. An to be honest, I have trouble believing that anyone really thinks otherwise. If people actually believed that caring about future generations really meant that people needed to sacrifice their own bodies for each potential life, then there would be forced organ donation. 21 people die a day waiting for organs, many of those preventable if even dead people were willing to give up their bodily autonomy and donate unused organs.